In your previous mail you wrote:
Assuming you send a binding-update in the SYN, then communication using the
home address will be relatively efficient - just a little more overhead in
the packets, but no extra packets and no packets going through the home
agent.
=> even the idea of a binding-update in the SYN seems nice this will not
work like this a the real word because the binding-update must be
authentic ie a security association must be established before.
If you use IKE with certificates then this can be more expensive than
to go through the tunnel and can add a delay before the connection
set up.
Then your argument is not as good as we'd like and I agree with the
(missing) rationate of "correspondent detection":
In particular, the mobile node SHOULD return a
Binding Update in response to receiving a packet that meets all of
the following tests:
- The packet was tunneled using IPv6 encapsulation.
- ... (some sanity checks on outer and inner addresses)
The main exception would be when you are dealing with a server that handles
lots of short-lived connections - it's binding cache might not work well. So
for your short-lived connections to such a server, you'd want to use your
care-of address instead of your home address.
If this option is going to be useful, it needs to be something that the app
can decide - having UI for this would not be good.
=> is my answer (a getsockopt() which returned the selected address in the
general case and the (suitable) care-of address in the mobile node case)
enough for you?
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
